If my property bordered an alley where literally every surface had been covered in murals for decades, and I discovered that the organized non-profit coordinating murals in that alley, who had a long-standing relationship with all of the property owners, had set an artist up to paint a new mural there, then I would be happy, yes.

Or if I were unhappy, I would talk to the artist and/or the mural organization about it, ideally before they had put too much time into the project.

I certainly wouldn't wait more than a decade after the murals were finished and then on a whim decide to paint over them, erasing months (?) of artists' efforts in an afternoon.

I don't know why you are putting "mural" in scare quotes. The works in question are clearly murals, not just graffiti tags or something.

Historically murals in that area have been planned, agreed with the property owners, and funded by local nonprofits or donation drives. They're community projects, not renegade takeovers. Using scare quotes to delegitimize it is a cheap shot. I think you're assuming that because some of the painting in the alley was just tagging, all of the paint on the walls was unpermitted vandalism.

It depends what the mural was of? If it was a pro KKK mural I would object. If it was some of the pictures in the article, that would be pretty sweet. If it was some of the other murals I've seen, I would be thrilled.

That depends on why, in this scenario, have I not walked out of my house in thirty five years

If you bought a house on Clarion Alley, would you be a douche bag and paint over the murals? That's the actual question about this situation. What is your hypothetical about?